Live data from Hacker News

AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

dslreports.com

291–300 of 382 posts

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#291
I'll go on record as saying I am an ardent hater of U-Verse and AT&T due to personal experience with their service and would like nothing more than for this to be a purposeful act that would result in backlash on that company...

... that said, I'm going to fall in the camp of stating that this is likely an unintentional bug. If they truly wanted to block 1.1.1.1 (and it's backup), doing so via firmware would seem to be the most difficult and unreliable way of doing so. The benefits of doing so are also limited: (a) If the motivation was to avoid losing the ability to spy on their customers via DNS requests, well ... they can still do that. Yes, Cloudflare supports encrypted DNS, but the half of one percent of folks who have this set up wouldn't be worth the effort[0]. (b) If there was some other reason to want customers using their DNS (i.e. redirection to advertising pages when lookup fails), they could simply do packet rewrites (of non-encrypted DNS lookups) to send them over to AT&Ts infrastructure -- the benefit of doing this is that it would be more likely to go unnoticed[1]. (c) There have been several other, far more popular and just as well publicized public DNS services that they haven't messed with -- why pick on a new entrant -- why not break 8.8.8.8 or OpenDNS?

More likely is the explanation that 1.1.1.1 was being used as a defact-o 10.x.x.x address for other purposes. It had a few benefits -- it was far less likely to be used as an internal address for customers (being ... not a traditional non-routable address) and up until recently, it was unlikely to be used for legitimate services. Or ... it's something else. Firmware bugs are everywhere and having had their service and the particular brand of modem they're using, I'm not the least bit surprised. I had to root my modem to make my service work reliably[2]. Heck, I worked for a telecom for 17 years, and the first half of that, the guy who set our network up used 1-10.x.x.x as internal addresses.

[0] It's not terribly difficult to do, but few take the effort. I've got an internal DNS server configured (for AD purposes) which forwards to another internal DNS server that makes all DNS requests out to cloudflare via encrypted DNS. It was a 5 minute change to my internal setup, a lot of which was the time it took to download the container, reboot the host for testing purposes and validation of everything.

[1] It probably would have managed to be hidden an entire minute longer than this debacle.

[2] On their DSL (re-labeled U-Verse despite it having nothing to do with their U-Verse TV/Internet -- it's the old DSL limited to 12Mb down if you're lucky), my modem would randomly display the "Internet is down" page for all requests despite everything being fine. I forgot, exactly, what I had to do to resolve it, but it required hitting their ping page to trigger a buffer overflow, allowing me to get console access and running some command. I also wanted to be able to ping the modem remotely (something they disable with no customer-facing option to correct) to correlate it with weather so as to prove to customer service (...and at least a little to myself) that this bizarre happenstance wasn't all in my head. My next-door neighbors also had this problem, so I suspected it was something in the wiring (expansion/contraction-like) up the street, but it was hard to track down where because all but two people on that street (including us) used those homes as summer vacation homes and were rarely there in the winter -- many didn't have service and those who did were unlikely to be around when the weather hit about 40 degrees, so AT&T wasn't getting reports of outages in enough frequency to do anything about it. Two years ago, they sent a truck, took everyone down and re-did a pole 8 houses down. Since then, the problem hasn't happened.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net neutrality started disappearing long before it was even called "net neutrality" --- a lot of residential ISPs won't even let others send packets to the full 64K port range of TCP/UDP to the IP it gives you, blocking some of them for "security reasons", throttling/cutting off certain protocols like BitTorrent, censoring "malicious" sites, etc. If we want true Internet connections we're going to have to fight a lot…

You can't be too mad about the full port range. Residential ISPs blocking port 25 outbound (spam malware) and inbound (people installing mailer services as an open relay by default) contributed to tonnes of unwanted traffic. I know there was an amount of collateral damage, but if you think about it, it's been many years since malware would get in user desktops and just send spam, largely due to this.

Blocking things like Windows file sharing ports by default is fine, as long as you have the option to turn that off. Other ports, including mail, should be open.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#293
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>in order to promote their own business model. What's the theory exactly? What would be the benefit for AT&T to block a new 3rd party DNS? Did they do similar things in the past for other 3rd party DNSs such as OpenDNS, Quad9 or Google's? Seems odd to target this one service in particular.

I would think that being able to see what people are looking up would be quite valuable to an ISP; would help with customer profiling and selling ads. The ship may have sailed on blocking 8.8.8.8 at this point; some things _hard-code_ it.

> I would think that being able to see what people are looking up would be quite valuable to an ISP

Definitely. So if this truly was their strategy, why are they blocking 1.1.1.1 instead of pointing it at their own DNS? It would be less immediately obvious what’s happening versus outright blockage. I really think people are prematurely attributing this to nefariousness.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#294
post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be scarily surprised just how much telecommunications runs on Perl5 ranging around the ~150GB level. I had my stint at an ISP that worked with around 40 state level and national orgs. I saw the underbelly of how things work, and its frankly scary.

Nothing wrong with Perl5 though.

There is when much of the code was "write once, read never". There's more than a a few dozen MB blobs of dense perl5 code that we had no clue what it actually did, and was told not to touch it, lest many things break.

I had to end up touching one of them, because of things breaking with that subsystem and the new ticketing system that was being implemented. It had the wonderful line

     database_user = root
     database_password = [current mysql root password]
Lest to say, I no longer work there.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the stuff in the UK is voluntary (except the traffic analysis snooping stuff, but that's centralised and the Americans were doing that to their own citizens when it was theoretically illegal, so, meh). All the big famous ISPs you see advertising on TV have decided to volunteer to censor, but it's not a law. Smaller specialist ISPs just say "No". Mine even had a thing saying look at this great endorsement and it w…

The digital economy act 2017 requires porn with "insufficient" age verification to be blocked. Required by law. So exactly what parent said, happened.

Nope. It's fascinating how many people believe this, but it isn't what that law says, and so sure enough such sites are accessible via my ISP. The ISP is required by law to provide some means by which consumers can choose not to be able to access "adult" content. It does this during sign up, if you pick "Yes, block adult content" it informs you that they choose not to do business with you and suggest you use a different ISP.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#296
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

It's stupidity, then malice as a cover-up.

No, that's not what malice means.

Unless you're actually trying to say that AT&T has a grudge against Cloudflare and are only doing this to harm their company.

This is something more like negligence or gross negligence.

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's not just malice but doubly so: they used an IP they didn't have the rights to and they're now blocking proper users of it.

and theres nothing we can do about it.

If you own a device that is supported by a custom ROM such as Lineage OS then you can flash that and not worry about this change.

Otherwise, you can purchase a different device, preferably a Nexus/Pixel, or at least one that's unlocked. If that's impossible for you then, yes, you're stuck with AT&T's "best efforts."

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#299
post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with Perl5 though.

There is when much of the code was "write once, read never". There's more than a a few dozen MB blobs of dense perl5 code that we had no clue what it actually did, and was told not to touch it, lest many things break. I had to end up touching one of them, because of things breaking with that subsystem and the new ticketing system that was being implemented. It had the wonderful line database_user = root database_pass…

Every time I write some crap code at work, someone on HN tells a story about such horrors that I no longer feel bad. Thanks for making my day better :).

Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

Except when it is AT&T. Then you can just assume it was more malicious than you even originally thought

Equal parts malice and stupidity.
Post reply on HN